Brief Results From The Power Meter Project

I thought it was time to make some posts about the Power Meter Project 2007 since it is now over, and I got all the results ready for presentation. For people who haven’t heard about the Power Meter Project, I will start with a summary of the project:

Inclusion criteria: SRM or Powertap
In November 2006, I invited motivated riders to participate in the Power Meter Project 2007. The purpose of this project was to investigate what completely unknown riders were able to achieve with wattage controlled intervals dictated by me. The only requirement to be included in the project was to have a calibrated Power Tap or SRM power meter mounted on their bike.

Goal: Stronger riders, better coaching

I have coached riders in Denmark for the last seven years with great success, but training with power is still a pretty new phenomenon. I have some crucial data from wattage controlled training in the winter months, but having data from more riders increases my overall knowledge about coaching and power meter training. Thus, I thought the internet was a great way to achieve more data from riders willing to follow my program for 12 weeks strictly. Offering them a free training program was a win-win situation for both parties.

Communication via email
The 5 participants in the project did an excellent job throughout the 12 weeks (one rider dropped out after nine weeks). They sent me emails, questions and race reports that gave me an idea of how they were doing and showed me that their motivation was enormous. However, it wasn’t easy to know how to adjust training because all I knew was a summary of their power meter data and a brief report about how they were doing.

Intervals three times per week
I decided to make demanding programs with interval intensities close their scores in the maximum power output tests. E.g. Power output referring to 20 min threshold power tests were converted to 3 or 4 intervals of 6min with 20min power (4min recovery with 50% 20min power). The frequency of intervals was also higher than in most training programs, with three interval days per week. Some riders replaced one of the interval days with a race day.

Summary of results
– Improvements in 5-sec power, but not all riders. One didn’t spend time on sprint training because he focused on aerobic endurance. Another rider was probably close to his potential when the project started.
– Great Improvements in 1min maximum power (anaerobic endurance). This skill is probably where power meters are most valuable. Precise intervals resulted in increments of above 20 percents.
– Great improvements in 5min maximum power (VO2 max). This skill is beneficial, significantly impacting performance in most cycling races. These are the improvements that satisfy me most.
– Good improvements in 20min maximum power (Threshold power).

Conclusion
Overall I will conclude this project as a success. The riders achieved great success and were impressed with their progress. In the following posts, I will take a closer look at each participant’s progress.